From: Rod Speed on
terryc wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:24:06 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> terryc wrote
>>> Mike Rofone wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>>>> If the other networks don't have the same name then network
>>>>>> connectivity is limited.
>>
>>>>> That is just plain wrong.
>>
>>>> No, it's not. If your computer isn't on the same workgroup as
>>>> others then you cannot see them to access shared resources.
>>
>>> Isn't there a sharing setting to share stuff/item to all?
>>
>> Its much more complicated than that.
> So you never say.
>>
>>> Caverat, never set this, but as *nix can do it, old bill would have
>>> followed.
>>
>> Its nothing like what happens with that.
>
> Naah, you're right. Unix had it, IBm copied it for OS/2, then Novell
> got it, then old Bill almost two decades later decided he had better
> catch up on it or loose more big end business.

They dont even have workgroups, stupid.


From: terryc on
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:16:57 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:


>> Naah, you're right. Unix had it, IBm copied it for OS/2, then Novell
>> got it, then old Bill almost two decades later decided he had better
>> catch up on it or loose more big end business.
>
> They dont even have workgroups, stupid.

That is correct. Old bill didn't have any method of group sharing.
Everyone else did.